SHRI MAHADEV MEENA versus PRAVEEN RATHORE AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2021] 9 S.C.R. 214 · Decided: 27-09-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
214
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 9 S.C.R.
SHRI MAHADEV MEENA
v.
PRAVEEN RATHORE AND ANOTHER
(Criminal Appeal No. 1089 of 2021)
SEPTEMBER27, 2021
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND BV
NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860– ss.302, 120B – Bail – Murder of
appellant’s son – FIR inter alia alleged involvement of first respondent
and his proximity with deceased’s wife (co-accused) – Eventually,
first respondent granted bail – On appeal, held: High Court was in
error in allowing the application for bail – It ought to have had due
regard to the seriousness and gravity of the crime – Deceased was
employed with the Intelligence Bureau in New Delhi – First
respondent being an employee of the Anti-Corruption Bureau at
Jhalawar, the likelihood of the evidence being tampered with and
of the witnesses being suborned cannot be discounted – Bail was
granted to the co-accused on the ground that she had a child of
eleven months with her in jail – This cannot be the basis to claim
parity – A major role was attributed to first respondent in the murder
of the deceased – Impugned order set aside.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The order of the High Court contains serious
infirmities. The High Court has noted that there was a delay in
lodging the FIR. Prima facie, on 14 February 2018, the appellant
furnished a written intimation to the SHO at PS Jhalawar Sadar
recording the unnatural death of his son who had travelled from
New Delhi to Jhalawar, upon the discovery of the body close to
the railway tracks at around 8.30 pm. The initial intimation
recorded that while there was no injury on the body, the nails of
the hands and feet of the deceased were found to have turned
blue and the death had occurred in suspicious circumstances. It
was on the basis of this statement that on 15 February 2018, an
unnatural death was recorded under Section 174 of the CrPC.
The post-mortem report of 15 February 2018 indicates that the
[2021] 9 S.C.R. 214
214
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
215
cause of death would be determined once histopathological
examination of the viscera is concluded. The report dated 10
March 2018, of the Department of Pathology at the Jhalawar
Medical College & SRG Hospital showed congestion in the lungs
and pulmonary edema. On 12 April 2018, the FIR was registered
at PS Jhalawar Sadar. The FIR contains specific allegations against
the first respondent in respect of (i) his proximity to the wife of
the deceased; (ii) the deceased having objected to the first
respondent visiting their marital home and directing him to cease
doing so; and (iii) the call data records and WhatsApp messages
exchanged between the first respondent, the deceased and the
co-accused. While the initial report of the FSL, Jaipur, dated 4
May 2018, was negative for metallic poison, ethyl and methyl
alcohol, cyanide, alkaloids, barbiturates, tranquillizers and
insecticides, the report dated 25 October 2018 indicates that the
remnants of the viscera samples had tested positive for the
presence of Ketamine, an anesthetic drug. The High Court ought
to have had due regard to the seriousness and gravity of the
crime. The deceased was employed with the Intelligence Bureau
in New Delhi. The first respondent is an employee of the Anti-
Corruption Bureau at Jhalawar. The material which has emerged
during the course of investigation cannot simply be ignored or
glossed over (as the High Court has done). The first respondent
himself being an employee of the Anti-Corruption Bureau at
Jhalawar, the likelihood of the evidence being tampered with and
of the witnesses being suborned cannot be discounted. At this
stage, when the Court is called upon to evaluate whether a case
for the grant of bail has been made out, it is inappropriate to
enter upon matters which would form the subject of the trial when
evidence is adduced by the prosecution. Bail was granted to the
co-accused primarily and substantially on the ground that she
had a child of eleven months with her in jail. This cannot be the
basis to a claim of parity on the part of the first respondent. The
first respondent cannot claim parity with the co-accused since
the allegations in the FIR and the material that has emerged from
the investigation indicate that a major role has been attributed to
him in the murder of the deceased. The High Court was in error
in allowing the application for bail. The consideration that twenty-
five witnesses out of seventy-six witnesses had been examined
SHRI MAHADEV MEENA v. PRAVEEN RATHORE 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.